brickipediafandomcom-20200229-history
Forum:Article reviews
Well, I know that there are a lot of people here who would love to have article reviews - so let's do it. Should we have reviews for articles Discussion for whether or not we should have set reviews. * I would love to have reviews here! 01:03, September 29, 2011 (UTC) * Great idea. 01:13, September 29, 2011 (UTC) * I love it, this would bring in brick review fans and give brickipedia more fans!:[[User:Bob bricks|'Bob bricks']] [[User talk:Bob bricks|'Talk']] * Oppose. I really don't think it'd be feasible without the following: ** The ability for a new namespace. We already have the magazine and inventory namespaces, and I'm pretty sure on Wikia you're only allowed two custom namespaces. ** I don't think that everyone should have automatic rights to be able to submit a review. With anyone submitting reviews, I forsee mass vandalism, and what I would see as possibly worse- bad quality reviews, along the lines of an entire review being something like "this iz a kewl set", or having reviews full of bad spelling. If reviews are to be done, I think they need to be of a certain quality, and for that reason I would really think a reviewers user group would be better, where only members of the group could edit the review namespace. Anyone could have a "trial run" of the reviewer rights, and if the reviews they made were up to standard, they could keep the rights after the trail period. :Of course, if we moved off Wikia, the two above points would be possible and I would support the idea, but for now, I really think keeping reviews on the Reviews wiki would be a much better idea. 04:38, September 29, 2011 (UTC) *::Um, both of those ideas are entirely possible. Why don't you discuss changes, rather than just opposing things? The funny thing is that your idea is actually easier than mine... 13:31, September 29, 2011 (UTC) :::Oppose this idea -''' I agree with NHL. - 07:20, September 29, 2011 (UTC) ::I believe it is three custom namespaces, however I'm not sure. 07:12, September 29, 2011 (UTC) * I dunno. Some good points, and some bad. * Comment I: Regarding the namespaces - if the limit is two, just get rid of the Magazine one. Most of our handful of magazine pages aren't on it. - Kingcjc 16:46, September 29, 2011 (UTC) * Comment II: I'm edging support, waiting to see the idea develop. - Kingcjc 16:46, September 29, 2011 (UTC) *'''Beh - I'm not sure, to be honest. In response to NHL: **Wikia allows three extra namespaces, I think. I think. I'm too lazy to look it up. If we're moving out anyways, I guess that doesn't matter. **How about moving reviews into userspace? We could introduce a new namespace, User review. By considering reviews to be more user-based, "this iz a kewl set" pages seem more harmless to us. There shouldn't be any need to go through some probational process to be able to express your thoughts. FB100Z • talk • 05:20, October 1, 2011 (UTC) ***I'd go for that idea. - Kingcjc 17:06, October 2, 2011 (UTC) ****As would I, smarticle indeed. - 15:15, October 5, 2011 (UTC) How should reviews be organized? We could use the League of Legends wiki's page design (see here, in terms of the bar at the top. Ours would link to Article, Talk, Inventory and Review. 01:03, September 29, 2011 (UTC) * I've just created it but for the use of Brickipedia and it can be found at Template:Article Top. Everything works except the instructions which I will do tonight. An example of the template in use can be found at 7101 Lightsaber Duel. 07:05, September 29, 2011 (UTC) ** Anyone think it looks a bit strange with the ? 07:57, September 29, 2011 (UTC) ***It does, but I'm not sure what else we can do... perhaps condense the setheader to be something over/under the set infobox? 13:37, September 29, 2011 (UTC) ****Can we remove the chat box? (The box that says Brickipedia Chat at the top and with avatars underneath.) That may improve the look. (currently it comes up behind the white parts). - Kingcjc 16:46, September 29, 2011 (UTC) *****Yeah, I agree with cjc. 19:49, September 29, 2011 (UTC) ******I don't see this problem. Anyway. If we keep Article Top, it would be nice to implement the rating box into it. How should we review reviews? Here's how I'd like it set up: *A new namespace, Review: (For example, Review:Cake) *A "create a review" button at the top of the Review: page. *New review pages will follow a very easy-to-use preload (through semantic mediawiki preferably), and will automatically be added to Category:Unreviewed reviews. They will be created at Review:Cake/username_or_IP. We can then use abusefilter to ensure that only certain users can "review" the reviews, and change the category to Category:Reviews. *The Review: page can use some sort of fancy code (DPL?) to automatically transclude subpages in that category. Sounds complicated, but the result will be pretty simple to use :3 01:10, September 29, 2011 (UTC) :How about this? *A new namespace, Review. *Only 'reviewers' can change the review pages. *Another page (Brickipedia:Proposed_reviews), on which reviewers review the reviews, and then copy and paste them into the review page. (For example, Review:Cake_With_Chocolate_Icing_And_Icecream :D) Any thoughts? 01:13, September 29, 2011 (UTC) : Personally if this did go ahead, I'd go for the current system on the reviews wiki- one review page for each set, and multiple reviews on the page. I know it's a much smaller wiki, but I can't see why the system wouldn't work on a larger scale. (example- note the hidden categories and profile templates) 04:38, September 29, 2011 (UTC) : I prefer Ajr's to Jag's. I like the Idea of one main page for the set with others for individual reviews. 13:54, September 29, 2011 (UTC) *I don't see the point of having reviews if only certain users can do it. Let everyone do it. - Kingcjc 16:46, September 29, 2011 (UTC) :How about (Mainspace:)Cake/Review-Captain_Jag ? 17:58, September 30, 2011 (UTC) ::I would gor for the namespace thing, or if we wanted it to be a subpage, Cake/Reviews/NXT. But that would be complicated for new users, so probably just the namespace thing. 07:00, October 1, 2011 (UTC) I've got an idea. Let's review the reviews of reviews, so when we review the reviews, the reviewers of the reviews can be reviewed. Naturally, to ensure accuracy in our reviews, the reviewers of the reviewers of reviews must themselves be reviewed by additional reviewers. These reviewers must be reviewed by reviewed reviewers, and we must ensure that we properly review these "reviewer reviewer reviewer review" reviewers. The above paragraph would be a lot funnier if I didn't know the I before E principle. FB100Z • talk • 05:24, October 1, 2011 (UTC) :Can I be a reviewer reviewer reviewer reviewer review reviewer? - Kingcjc 08:58, October 1, 2011 (UTC) ::Only if you let me review your reviewer reviewer reviewer reviewer reviewer review'ing' edits. :::But if we review the reviews made by the reviewer reviewer reviewers, then the reviewers of the review reviews might not be reviewed by the reviewing reviewers. FB100Z • talk • 16:53, October 2, 2011 (UTC) ::::Hey, I have an idea! A reveiwing the reviews of the reviewer reviewer reviewers, the ones who review the reviews of the reviewers bot!